Measuring the Effectiveness of
Economic Development
Programs in Maryland Using
LEHD and Other Data
James Palma, AICP
Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development LEHD Conference, Washington, D.C.
Abstract
•
Conduct a pre-study to discover how
longitudinal employer-household
dynamics data can be combined with
other public and commercial economic
data sources to measure the
effectiveness of economic development
programs:
–
Measurement limited to geographically-based
MARYLAND’S ECONOMIC
Economic Development Programs
•
Economic development incentives can be broken
down into two basic categories:
– Geography-based programs that assist companies in
certain areas.
– Company-, Industry-, or Activity-Based programs that
are not related to particular areas.
•
Note that most geography-based programs also
have restrictions on covered activities, industries,
or both.
•
LEHD and similar data sources are most useful
Economic Development Programs
Maryland DBED Geography-Based:
– Enterprise Zones
– One Maryland Zones
– Job Creation Tax Credit (JCTC) Priority Funding Areas – Arts and Entertainment (A&E) Districts
– Base Re-Alignment and Closure (BRAC) Zones
Geography-Based from Other Agencies:
– SBA Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) Zones – USITA Free Trade Zones (FTZs)
– DHCD Sustainable Communities – DHMH Health Enterprise Zones
MARYLAND’S ENTERPRISE
ZONE PROGRAM
Maryland Enterprise Zones
•
Enterprise Zones (EZs) are one of the five
geographically-based incentive programs.
– Was created in 1982
•
Program has three components:
– Real estate tax abatement
– Employment income tax credit
– Focus areas, which increase real estate tax abatement,
add an additional abatement for business personal property, and increase income tax deduction for new employees
Maryland Enterprise Zones
•
Program is a joint local-state initiative.
– Local governments create zones, DBED approves. – Zone boundaries can be modified every six months – Local governments administer zones, DBED reports
on EZ use yearly.
– State supplies 50% of lost real property tax revenue
(and 50% of lost business personal property tax revenue for EZ Focus Areas).
– State process income tax deduction for employment,
which affects State and local income tax receipts*
Maryland Enterprise Zones
• To qualify as an Enterprise Zone in Maryland, and area must
have:
– At least 150% of the average unemployment rate – Area must qualify as a “low-income poverty area”
– At least 70% of the families in the area have incomes that are less
than 80% of area median family income; or
– Population decreases of 10% between the most recent two
censuses AND (1) chronic abandonment or demolition of
property is occurring in the area; or (2) substantial property tax arrearages exist in the area.
• Location definition is “in the area, or within a reasonable
proximity to the area but in the same county.”
– Allows unpopulated or sparsely populated areas to be designated – Zones often cover areas near poverty or blight, but do not
Maryland Enterprise Zones
• Focus Areas: A More powerful EZ designation. A Focus
Area must meet three of the following criteria: – (1) for the most recent 18-month period, the average
unemployment rate for the area is at least 150% of the average for the State or the United States (whichever is greater);
– (2) the incidence of poverty for the population in the area is
150% of the national average;
– (3) the crime rate in the area is at least 150% of the crime rate
in the political subdivision;
– (4) the percentage of substandard housing is at least 200% of
the percentage of housing units in the State that is substandard; or
– (5) the percentage of square footage of vacant commercial
Maryland Enterprise Zones
•
There are currently 28 active Enterprise
Zones in 14 Maryland jurisdictions.
•
Only two jurisdictions have Focus Areas
(Baltimore City and Prince George’s County).
•
Over time, certain areas have seen Enterprise
Zones expire.
5-Tiered Approach to Program Evaluation
• Tier 1: Needs Assessment / Pre-Implementation
– Data can be used to measure the need for intervention
(unemployment, income levels, etc.).
• Tier 2: Monitoring and Accountability
– Program-generated data is “fresh” enough to use for
monitoring.
– LEHD data, and most economic data, probably is not.
• Tier 3: Quality Review and Program Clarification
– I.e. “understanding and refining”
– Acceptable as data recency is not an issue
• Tier 4: Achieving Outcomes
Measuring Outcomes and Impacts
•
Most DBED geography-based programs have
been in place for multiple years.
–
All are established by statute.
–
Preliminary needs assessments unavailable.
•
Program goals often need to be interpreted, as
controlling legislation is often silent on intent.
–
Program eligibility rules are often used as stand-ins
Pew Business Incentives Initiative
• Joint study with Pew Charitable Trusts, Center for
Regional Economic Competitiveness (CREC), and Entreworks Consulting. The study means to:
– Identify effective ways to manage and assess economic
development incentive policies and practices.
– Improve data collection and reporting on incentive
investments.
– Develop national standards and best practices that states
can use to successfully gather and report data on economic development incentives.
• Participating states: Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland,
Tax Credit Evaluation Act of 2012
•
MD Legislature passed the “Tax Credit
Evaluation Act of 2012” (Chapters 568 and
569) to create a process for evaluating various
tax credits.
•
In 2014, the MD Division of Legislative
Services (DLS) completed a preliminary
Tax Credit Evaluation Act of 2012
•
Findings from the DLS study were that:
– The EZ program was not “Creating Employment
Opportunities for Enterprise Zone Residents”
– In many EZs, “Few Businesses Are Claiming the
Property Tax Credit”
– “DBED and the Comptroller’s Office Do Not Assess
the Effectiveness of the Enterprise Zone Tax Credit”
– “Enterprise Zone Expansions Have Become More
Prevalent in Recent Years, Diluting the Impacts of Zones and Increasing State and Local Credit Costs”
DBED Enterprise Zone Survey
•
Local government officials and Enterprise
Zone administrators were surveyed.
•
Major findings:
–
Major Enterprise Zone goals are to create jobs
and attract new businesses.
–
Enterprise Zones are perceived as useful tools by
local governments to attract new businesses and
create jobs.
Enterprise Zone Objectives from
DBED / MACo / MML Survey
0.73 2.69 2.92 2.92 3.69 4.85 5.00 5.19 Alleviation of poverty Increase tax base Redevelopment of blighted property Reduction in unemployment Job retention Job creation Retaining/expanding businesses Attracting new business
Please rank the main objectives of having an Enterprise Zone (EZ) in your jurisdiction (rank 1-8, 8 is highest)
ENTERPRISE ZONE
ANALYSIS
EZ Analysis Questions
•
Are Zone residents employed by businesses
located within Enterprise Zones?
•
Have EZs increased employment, or have they
reduced employment declines?
–
First is simple to discover, second is not.
•
Have income levels increased for Zone
residents?
•
Has company health improved within EZs?
•
Have property values improved?
Analysis Methodology
• Examine the place of work of workers who live in or
around EZ areas
– Using LODES demographic data
• Examine the place of residence of workers who work
in EZ areas
– Including demographics as above
• Examine multiple time periods
– Raises issues of LEHD / LODES comparability over time
• Examine individual establishments using National
Establishment Time Series (NETS) Data
• Examine property values and changes using assessment
Analysis Methodology
• Decide which Enterprise Zone definition(s) to use:
– Enterprise zone boundaries change on a regular basis.
Boundaries can change every six months.
– For convenience, only GIS layers from 2002 and 2011
were used, overlayed to highlight intersecting areas.
– In some counties, significant changes occurred in with EZ
status over the 10-year period, complicating the analysis.
• Enterprise Zones do not overlay well with Census
blocks, even in urban areas:
– Minimum unit for creating an EZ is a parcel.
Example Enterprise Zone Areas in Prince
George’s County, MD - 2001 and 2011
Block vs Enterprise Zone Boundaries
BALTIMORE CITY ANALYSIS
USING ON THE MAP
Baltimore EZ Commuting Analysis
Of the 214 thousand workers employed in Census blocks intersected by Baltimore’s Enterprise Zone Boundaries between 2002 and 2011, 28 thousand (13%) both lived and worked within prior or current EZ boundaries, and 32% of residents worked in the EZ.
Baltimore EZ Commuting Analysis
Living in the Study Area 2002 2011 Change
Baltimore City 280,957 242,084 -13.8%
Baltimore Enterprise Zones 102,475 89,006 -13.1%
Living and Employed in the Study Area 2002 2011 Change
Baltimore City 132,983 111,257 -16.3%
Baltimore Enterprise Zones 36,719 28,060 -23.6%
Living and Employed in the Study Area 2002 2011 Change
Baltimore City 147,974 130,827 -11.6%
Baltimore Enterprise Zones 65,756 60,946 -7.3%
Employed in the Study Area 2002 2011 Change
Baltimore EZ Resident Earnings
Interior Flow Job Characteristics 2002 2011
Workers Earning $1,250 per month or less Count Share Count Share
Baltimore City 38,830 29.2% 23,164 20.8%
Baltimore Enterprise Zones 11,595 31.6% 5,835 20.8%
Workers Earning $1,251 to $3,333 per month
Baltimore City 67,902 51.1% 46,822 42.1%
Baltimore Enterprise Zones 19,866 54.1% 12,932 46.1%
Workers Earning More than $3,333 per month
Baltimore City 26,251 19.7% 41,271 37.1%
Local Establishment Changes Using NETS
•
NETS (National Establishment Time Series) is
based on Dun & Bradstreet data, tracks
establishments from 1990 through 2012.
–
Tracks location, employment, sales, etc.
–
Underlying data for YourEconomy.org
•
NETS Data is geocoded to the individual
establishment, allowing more precise analysis.
•
RESI at Towson University performed an
Real Estate Change Analysis
•
Real estate investments are the largest use of
the Enterprise Zone program.
•
Question: Does an entire Enterprise Zone
area see increases in taxable value following
investments by a small number of landowners?
0 5 10 15 20 FY 2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 2010FY FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 M illio ns
State Tax Reimbursement
500 700 900 1,100 FY 2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 2010FY FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014
Businesses Receiving Property Tax Credits 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 FY 20 06 FY 20 07 FY 20 08 FY 20 09 FY 201 0 FY 201 1 FY 201 2 FY 201 3 FY 201 4 M illio ns Capital Investment
Capital investment in Enterprise Zones was $2.4 billion in FY2014. State tax reimburse- ment to jurisdictions was $13.7 million, meaning that jurisdictions gave up another $13.7 million in revenues (50% match). These tax reductions went to 802 recipients In FY2014.
Findings
•
Q. Are Zone residents employed by businesses
located within Enterprise Zones?
•
A. A certain percentage are employed, but far
from the majority.
– This is partly due to how Zones are defined. Many
zones only include commercial or industrial land.
– Enterprise Zone boundaries are drawn to cover lands
that can support redevelopment, not lands that contain poverty or blight.
– Can or should the analysis be performed on areas that
Findings
•
Q. Have Enterprise Zones increased employment,
or have they reduced employment declines?
– There is much variation between zones.
– In Baltimore City, it could be argued that Enterprise
Zones performed about as well as the City as a whole.
•
Q. Have income levels increased for Zone
residents?
– Data shows that income levels have generally
increased, again, there is variation between zones.
Findings
•
Q. Has company health improved within EZs?
•
Q. Have property values improved?
•
A. The answer to both of these questions are
greatly affected by the effects of the run-up in
property value before the recession, and the
effects of the recession itself.
Findings
• LODES data is difficult to match to EZ boundaries, making the
analysis proximity-based rather than exact.
– Buffers are probably a better method of analysis, as errant blocks near
EZs would be captured.
• NETS data and MD PropertyView data give a more exact view of
changes within EZ boundaries
– However, data on workers is not available from these sources.
• No data source has a long enough time series to study the
Enterprise Zone program from the beginning.
– Program started in 1981.
– GIS map layers are not available until 2001.
• Finding comparable areas not covered by EZ areas is difficult
Next Steps: Full Analysis and Review
• Analyzing year-by year changes from 2002 to 2011:
– Blocks included in analysis when they are included in an
Enterprise Zone.
– Areas uncovered by EZ’s kept in the analysis for 10 years.
• Adding Focus Areas:
– Focus Areas have different rules that likely create different
outcomes and need to be analyzed separately.
• Correcting missing property data:
– Missing or incorrect property valuation data needs to be
corrected or estimated.
• Review methodology and results for future use:
– Is this the best way to measure the effectiveness of Enterprise
Questions?
•
Contact Information:
James Palma, AICP
Senior Manager, Research and Information Division of Marketing and Communications
Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development
401 East Pratt Street, 9th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202 (410) 767-6680
